Disposed

G. Venkataiah and 32 others v. The State of Telangana and 6 others

Telangana HC13 Oct 2023WP/31539/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition was filed by Sammakka Saralamma Jathara petitioners alleging misuse of funds and the inaction of authorities in considering their representations. The High Court directed the District Collector, Peddapally, to consider the representation dated 06.06.2022, inquire into the matter within four weeks, and take appropriate steps. The writ petition was disposed of without costs.

What did the court decide?

Respondent No.2 (District Collector, Peddapally) is directed to consider the petitioners' representation dated 06.06.2022, inquire into the matter within four weeks of receiving this order, and take a

G. Venkataiah and 32 others Vs The State… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2023)

[^320e ]

r:. t.I I i I I t.t, I 1. a. I I I II t ,Ij E IHt :I ili ,I. rfi[,{ '3.1 i{, l*, 13, ,'1 '.:rl in rt . .1 l.t ;&1,. K:lr

¶5

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶6

FRIDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶7

PRESENT

¶8

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA

¶9

WRIT PETITION NO:31 539 0F 2022

¶10

Between:

¶11

l.G.Venkataiah5,/oCattaiah, Agedabout72years,Occ.Retd. Employee
2.ArkatiRayamallu5/oKomraiair, Agedabout77years,Occ.Rtd.Employee
3.Janagama Sailu5/oPocham. Agedabout70years,Occ.Rtcl.Employee
4.AdabakthulaRajanarlu5/oRajam, Agedabout62years,Occ. Rto.Employee
5.Chintanippula Mallaiah5/oKistaiah, Agedabout5Oyears,Occ.Rtd.Em oyee P	l:.
6.ErraMallaiah5,/oChandraiah Agedabout52years,Occ.SCCLEmproyee I	:ilr.. i.r!.
7.UudhariKanakaiah5/oBakkaiah ,. Agedabout 50years,Occ.Tailaring -"ii	.:4., lii: {f;"1 ,is&i
8.GundaboinaBhumaiah5,/oPo_chami: Agedabout5Oyears,Occ.SCCI-Enip loyqel	,lc: .-t:1.
:.r. 9.Gundaboina Ailaiah5,/oRayamallui'.-;,,..	1 ' Agedabout 70years,Occ.Agricultrire,.rl,l, '
i^t..-'1"'; l0.GundaboinaParvathalu5/oYellaialq,'. Agedabout 59years,Occ. Rtd.Employee' ..: i^,:..:	:ax;t ,tY' '.,?i..
,,_, ll.GundaboinaLaxman5/oMqllaiah'?',:.:,;;r;. Agedabout44years.Occ.AutoD1i{4g6,.q;$'- ^r'..::.ll -	::Sl
.:.:, ., I2.Doragandla Mallaiah5/oRaya	ilgij.iL,*!,L Agedabout5lyears.Occ.SCCl'.Eiiiill6ftlEi't

¶12

C,r')

¶13

l3.Sirivena Peddha^{Lingaiah 5/o Not Known} Aged about Major, Occ..Rtd.^Employee

¶14

Mutyala Saranandham^{5/o Ashalu} Aged about Major, Occ.^Cooli

¶15

Putta Sharath Kumar^{S/o Rajesham} Aged about Major, Occ.^PrivateWork

¶16

Gundaboina Narsaiah^{5lo Muthaiah} Aged about 55^{years,Occ. Rtd. Employee}

¶17

Rappilli Shravanth^{5/o Ramulu} Aged about 35^{years,Occ. Private Teacher}

¶18

Rappilli Naramana^{5/o Balaiah} Aged about 70^{years,:Occ.Rtd. Employee}

¶19

Arkali Shankar^{5/o Not Known} Aged about. Occ. Agriculture

¶20

Ramapenky PeddhE.|!-lanmaiah^{5/oAshal u} Aged about 75^{years, Occ. Agriculture}

¶21

6undaboi na 5adha.nairdha ,S,/o 6attaiah Aged about 39^years.' oli

¶22

Putta Veesham mallu Aged about 6l^years Employee 23. Siddha MPgali saiah Aged about 5! ,Ye4lil ooli 24. : PothaiNarsini: i.t iMallaiah .. 4., vate^job Aged about 5.6..:yed . ' :.:. 25. :t Piithart/.antha ,Mallaia h 'A8gd about 5 ivate^job tt 26. :,,rr S/o Peda Rajaiah Age-dt L.Employee . .!L

¶23

¶24

i.l !:

¶25

I l, :. I t, f. I i, i i l. t: l! l; l,i, T u B

¶26

¶27

Jakkula Kmuraiah 5/o Venkataiah
Aged about 46 years. Occ. Agriculture
28.
Pudhari Mahendar.5/o Rajesham
Aged about 35 years, Occ. Agriculture
29. Kaasu Sampath 5/o Hanumanthu
Aged about 39 years. Occ. Private job
30. Vudhari Venkatesh 5/o Bakkaiah
Aged about 59 years, Occ: Agriculture,
31. Arkati Srinivas 5/o Mallaiah
Aged about. Occ. Cooli
32. Ramatanki China Hanumaiah 5/o Mallaiah
Aged about 5B years, Occ: Agriculture,
33. Putta Venkatesh 5/o Venkataiah
Aged about, Occ: Agriculture,
All are residenti of G.M Colony, Codavarikhani, i:
Ramagundam Mandal, Peddapally District.
.......Petitioners
AND
I The State of Telangana i
Rep Department by its Principal of Registration Secretary,of Societies, ' ,.:l
BRKR Bhavan, Secratariat. Hyderabad.
:.-1
2. The District Collector,
Peddapally District.
3.
The DistriA Registrar (Societies),
Peddaplly (old Karimnagar) D
4. The Assistant Comissioner e ieePartmen t,
',i; .
Peddapally District.
!ia
i
5. The Revenue Divisional O
Peddapally Division, Peddapal
6 The Tahsildar, Ramagundam Manda
Peddapally District.
-liI ..li,t, ;.1-.

¶28

:.-1

¶29

i
I
l
I
1,
i l
t
:1.
.ti.

¶30

--7- 7

¶31

+,.

¶32

The Ramagundam Muncipal Corporation, Rep by its Commissioner, Ramagudem, Peddapally District

¶33

...RESPONDENTS

¶34

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, to declare the action of the Respondents in not considering the representation dt.06.06.2022 made by the Petitioner as illegal, arbltrary, against the settled^principals of law and consequently direct the Respondents to cancel the Society Registration and to inquire into the activities of the society and its financial accounts.

¶35

!A NO: 1 OF 2022

¶36

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the High Court may be^pleased to direct the Respondents to consider the Representation d1.06.06.2022 made by the Petitioners, pending disposal of the Writ Petition.

¶37

Counsel for the Petitioners: M/s. D.DAMHITHA FOR SRI PENUBALLI RAMESH BABU Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 TO 3, 5 & 6: SRI B.DILEEP KUMAR, AGP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No.4: AGP FOR ENDOWMENTS Counsel for the Respondent No.7: M/s. BHAGYA SREE, SC FOR MPCL

¶38

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶39

HOI{PBLE DT. JUSTICD CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA

¶40

WRIT PETITION No.31539 o 2022

¶41

ORDER:

¶42

Heard Ms. D.Samhitha, learned counsel, who argued on behalf of Sri Penuballi Ramesh Babu, learned counsel on record for the petitioners, Sri B.Dileep Kumar, learned Assistalt Government Pleader lor Revenue, who is representing respondent Nos.1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Endowments, who is representing respondent No.4.

¶43

Aggrieved by the inaction of the respondents tn considering the representation given by the petitioners, dated 06.6.2022, the present Writ Petition is filed.

¶44

Making her submission with regard to the merits of the case, learned counsel for the petitioners states that Sammakka Saralamma Jathara is being celebrated timely and huge funds are being received from several sources. There is misuse of the funds. The petitioners gave number of representations to all the authorities concerned bringing to their notice about the misuse of funds and seeking them to take necessary steps, however, none responded. Learned counsel also states that a representation was given to the

¶45

¶46

¶47

Dr.CSL. J lt l' t\o.31539 of2t)22

¶48

District Collector, Peddapally on 06.6.2022 al<l the same is pending till now. Learned counsel further states that no further orders in this Writ Petition are required, except to direct the District Collector, Peddapally to consider the representation of the petitioners, dated 06.6.2022, and to pass appropriate orders.

¶49

4 . Neither the learned Assistant Governmen t pleader for Revenue nor the learned Assistant Government pleader for Endowments raised any objection for granting such a relief. Also, the relief claimed appears justifiable. Furthermore, the District Coilector would be under obligation to see that the district administration is properly functioning. Therefore, this Court considers it desirable to honour the recluest of the learned counsel for the petitioners.

¶50

Hence, this Writ Petition is disposed of with the following direction:-

¶51

Respondent No.2 i.e District Collector, Peddapally, is directed to consider the representation of the petitioners, dated 06.6.2022, enquire into the matter within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a

¶52

¶53

DT,CSL, J Ll.P.No.3l539 of2022

¶54

'i :7

¶55

copy of this^{order and thereafter, totake} appropriate^{steps if required' A copy of the order} be communicated^{to the petitioners' Thereshall} be no order as to^costs.

¶56

Miscellaneous^{petitions pending, ifany, shall stand}

closed.

,,rRuEcoPY"^***:;'#:

lffiffiffiffiffiffiffiiffi

¶61

iffiffffisfll:ffihff;;

PSK. crPsu-

HIGH COURT

DATED:1 311012023

ORDER

WP.No.31539 of 2022

.:-a'
i-'; S iA;'G c
'ct'
^
/,t
r:) t
{)
rj 11 [[i :li]

¶68

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS.

G. Venkataiah and 32 others v. The State of Telangana and 6 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G. Venkataiah and 32 others v. The State of Telangana and 6 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kondapally Satya Sheel Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh Rep by

Gandham Padma Latha Vs State of Telangana

M/s Vedik Estates and Constructions Vs The State of Telangana

Kodimyala Shravani Laxmi Vs the State of Telangana

Smt B.Padma Vs The State of Telangana

R.Bhanu Murthy Vs The State of Telangana